|
 |
CNN CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT
Nine Men Trapped in Collapsed Mine; Rigas Family Disgraced by Adelphia Arrests; Man Sues Fast Food Restaurants for Making Him Fat
Aired July 25, 2002 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CONNIE CHUNG, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening. I'm Connie Chung.
Tonight, they're buried alive. The water's rising, and the race is on to save their lives.
ANNOUNCER: Trapped underground. Nine men fight to survive in a collapsed coal mine.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We still believe and are optimistic that some may be alive.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Tonight, a rescue mission's that's a race against time.
Chaos in the court. This man, Zacarias Moussaoui, tells the judge he was involved in a 9/11 conspiracy, then quickly changes his mind. What's going on there?
Cable pirates, this Man and his sons face 100 years each, accused of using the sixth-largest cable company as a personal piggy bank, buying a golf course, plane trips and even a hockey team. But prosecutors say it wasn't their money.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They stole hundreds of millions of dollars and, through their fraud, caused losses to investors of more than $60 billion.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Tonight, the inside story of the Rigas family.
This is CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT. Live from the CNN Broadcast Center in New York, Connie Chung.
CHUNG: Good evening.
It's now almost 22 hours since nine Pennsylvania coal miners were trapped underground by a roaring rush of water, smashing through the mineshaft walls. It's not known how many of them have survived. It is not known how many of them will survive overnight in a three-foot high chamber, literally pitch black, air supply in jeopardy, at least partially submerged in waters capable of inducing hypothermia.
What do we know? CNN's Jeff Flock is on the story in Somerset, Pennsylvania.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JEFF FLOCK, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): From the air, you could see an opening into the Que Creek Mine now flooded with more than 50 million gallons of water. It happened when the miners accidentally broke through into a water-filled abandoned mine. Hoses snake across the rock as rescuers frantically try to pump out water to take the pressure off an air bubble that they think holds the trapped miners.
About a mile and a half away, directly over the spot where they think the nine men are located, they ready a 30-inch collar where they will drill a hole big enough to get the miners out. Nearby, smaller holes are being drilled to pump out more water. One that they think has hit the miners' air bubble is now being used to pump air back in, which will give the miners something fresh to breathe. They also hope the compressed air will push back the water and widen the air pocket.
With a police escort leading it on, our cameras catch a glimpse of the giant drill they'll used to bore the 30-inch escape hole. They say it could take 15 hours to go as much as 300 feet needed to reach the men.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(on camera): And of course, Connie, the big question tonight is are they still alive? Here's the latest that we know. The last time they got any tapping from the bottom of that hole that we talked about, the one that they're pumping the water in, any time they -- the last time they heard any tapping from there was now almost eight hours ago. So that's the big question. They're still operating as though they're alive. They believe that they're alive and they're going that way. But at this point, we just don't know -- Connie.
CHUNG: Jeff, can you describe exactly where the men are?
FLOCK: Yes. As a matter of fact, I can. If you got a minute here, they gave us this sort of graphic representation. This is the mine that the men were working in. This is the abandoned mine called the Saxman Mine, that was right adjoining it. They broke through the wall and that's where the water rushed in.
Now, this is what it looks like underneath. They believe the water came in from the Saxman mine this way. They think they're in this little pocket here with perhaps their heads or whatever, part of themselves above water. And this water having rushed through created this little pocket here. That's where they think they've got their drill down and that's where they think they're now pumping air into. This is what they hope, anyway -- Connie.
CHUNG: Now, what about the men who were able to escape? There were nine men who were able to get out. Do you know where they were, and why they were able to get out?
FLOCK: They were farther up the shaft here. And when this -- the water began coming through from the Saxman Mine and began pouring in this way, they radioed those men to get out. They were then able to get out and got away, largely because the miners that are still trapped down there were able to radio that information to them.
CHUNG: Now, Jeff, we're told that the reason why the miners got into trouble there was because the authorities, those maps that they had, did not pinpoint this abandoned mine. How could that be?
FLOCK: Exactly. Well, you know, they've been mining in Pennsylvania, coal for 100, 150 years. There are a lot of abandoned mines. They try to catalog them. They did know that the Saxman Mine was out there. But they had a permit that allowed them within 200 feet of the Saxman Mine. That's where they thought they were.
Somehow, something was wrong. Either the map was wrong, they got off course. We don't, at this point, know. That investigation won't even start until they're done with the rescue. But that's what happened. Somehow, something went wrong and they hit that abandoned mine.
CHUNG: Jeff, all of these people have incredible stamina. Are they going to be working through the night?
FLOCK: You betcha. It will take, as we said, 15 hours, at the last report, they think to get through. They began, again, we have not gotten a report from the scene here in the last hour and a half or so. They thought that the drilling was going to start about three hours ago. So if, in fact, it got underway when it was supposed to, they are still maybe a dozen hours away. Maybe they make some time up or something. But we're still looking at a very long time drilling overnight, certainly.
CHUNG: All right. Jeff Flock, thank you so much. I know you'll be staying on top of this story for us and keeping us up to date with any developments. Thank you, Jeff.
Now, Pennsylvania's Que Creek Mine is just about 10 miles away from the Shanksville, where United Flight 93 had smashed into the ground. It's the final blow in the attacks of September 11. The region is no stranger to grief. And Red Cross volunteers have been meeting with and counseling the friends and loved ones of those trapped, possibly injured, many more under that 200 feet below the ground.
Joining me now from Somerset is Red Cross mental health worker, David Markley. Thank you so much for being with us, David.
DAVID MARKLEY, MENTAL HEALTH WORKER, RED CROSS: Hi. CHUNG: Tell me, how many families are there, and you know, have been talking to you, and telling you about their emotions and their thoughts?
MARKLEY: At last count, there were approximately 128 people at the site where we're meeting with the families. And how many are specifically members, you know, family members of the miners? I'm unsure. But there's been quite a few people up there that are involved with the miners.
CHUNG: And I understand that many of them have been provided transportation to actually go to the site. It must be so difficult to do that.
MARKLEY: Yes. A lot of the family members that did make the trip from the fire hall where we're meeting with them to the actual drill site did have a lot of difficulty with going out and seeing the site and then returning back and having to manage those feelings behind that.
CHUNG: How is this different from other disasters where you have volunteered, because I know you've volunteered many times?
MARKLEY: Right. I think one of the biggest things that's different with this disaster is it's an unknown entity at this time. With other disasters, by the time you meet with the family, the disaster has pretty much resolved itself and you're working through the aftermath of the disaster.
In this case, the family members aren't really sure what to expect, what they're going to experience in the long term. And so, there's a lot of anticipation, a lot of anxiety because they don't really know what is going to happen next.
CHUNG: I'm sure you have worked with coal miner families before, and they really are a tight group, aren't they? They stick together. They know the perils of the job, and they have many family members, I would imagine, who have been in similar situations.
MARKLEY: Yes, that's true. The community really has pulled together very, very well. They're a very strong community, very close knit, a lot of friends helping each other out because of the fact that they're miners and have a history of mining in their families and in their communities.
CHUNG: So, how long do you expect everyone to stay there? Are they prepared to be there all night?
MARKLEY: At this point, I would say that the family and friends that are there are in for the duration. They're prepared to stay as long as it takes to have some kind of closure with the current situation.
CHUNG: What is the set-up? Is everyone able to have something to eat and places for them to sleep? MARKLEY: Yes. Part of what the Red Cross is doing is acting as a support for the ladies -- for the Shanksville's -- excuse me, Sykesville (ph) Lady Auxiliary Fire Department. And they're providing food and a place for them to be, a place for them to stay to get the assistance they require while they're here.
CHUNG: And how about helping emotionally because I'm sure they're quite emotionally fragile?
MARKLEY: Yes. A lot of what we're trying to provide for them is what's termed emotional first aid. It's supportive counseling to help them deal with the intense emotions they're experiencing now as a result of the crisis that they're involved in.
MARKLEY: Thank you.
CHUNG: When we come back, the widow who lost her husband in the 9/11 attacks. He was piloting one of those doomed airliners. She wanted her plea to be heard today in Washington, but claims she was shut out. Her story when we return.
ANNOUNCER: Still ahead, like father, like sons?
And what would you do if the people running your company were accused of spending your money and living the high life? When CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT returns.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANNOUNCER: Mining rescue workers, oil men, firefighters, paramedics and volunteers all worked together to save one tiny person trapped below ground back in 1987. She was 18 months old and she was Jessica McClure. Her ordeal began after she sat with her legs dangling down an eight and three-quarter inch pipe sticking out of the ground. When she tried to stand up, she fell straight down into a rock-lined shaft, one leg pinned straight up. She remained that way for more than two days. As the nation watched and rescue workers frantically tried to figure out a way to dig down to her without burying her under rock and rubble. Throughout, they piped warm air down to her and tried to keep her spirits up by getting her to sing the "Winnie the Pooh" theme and asking her what sound a cat makes. Finally, they reached her through a parallel shaft and brought her to safety.
RUDY GLASSCOCK (ph), MIDLAND, TX, POLICE OFFICER: Everybody cried. You know, I fell down on my knees and cried. You'd had adrenaline for 58 hours, so all of that had to go somewhere.
ANNOUNCER: Fifteen years later, what has happened to the girl once known as Baby Jessica?
The answer when we return.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANNOUNCER: What's become of Jessica McClure, whose tumble down a well captivated the nation 15 years ago? Her parents don't want her photographed reportedly out of the fears of kidnapping. Why would she be kidnapped? Though by all accounts she's grown to be a happy, normal, healthy 16-year-old, the donations estimated to have poured in left her with a trust fund to give her at the age of 25, well over $1 million.
CHUNG: For the second time in two weeks, Zacarias Moussaoui today tried to plead guilty to conspiring with the September 11 hijackers. But this time, it was his own decision to withdraw the plea. Last week, a judge had rejected his plea. So what made Moussaoui change his mind today? CNN's Deborah Feyerick is covering the trial.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It looked like a done deal. Zacarias Moussaoui pleading guilty to four of the six conspiracy counts against him. Moussaoui telling the judge: "It would be easy for me to plead guilty to 90 percent of the indictment." But under questioning by the judge, Moussaoui continued denying a role in the September 11 attacks. Asking for a 15-minute recess, Moussaoui returned, said a prayer, and told the judge, I have to withdraw my guilty plea.
FRANK DUNHAM, MOUSSAOUI'S STANDBY ATTORNEY: He found out what the repercussions of a guilty plea were, what it was he had to swallow, so to speak, what facts he had to agree to in order to plead guilty. And I don't think he understood that he had to admit 9/11 in order to plead guilty.
FEYERICK: Moussaoui accused the judge of putting conditions on his guilty plea, telling the Judge Leonie Brinkema: "You want to link me to certain facts that will guarantee my death." The judge warned Moussaoui a week ago when he first tried pleading guilty that he would have to admit to everything the government's accusing him of doing. His estranged lawyers tried getting the hearing postponed pending a new psychiatric evaluation. The judge ruling at the start of the hearing Moussaoui remains mentally competent.
EDWARD MACMAHON, MOUSSAOUI'S STANDBY ATTORNEY: Mr. Moussaoui showed no understanding whatsoever of what he needed to do to enter a guilty plea today.
FEYERICK: Moussaoui had hoped by pleading guilty he would be able to tell a jury exactly what he did, not, in his words, what the government says he did. And though he called an American jury his enemies, he said they'd be honest enemies. His mother expressed relief
AICHA EL WAFI, MOUSSAOUI'S MOTHER (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): And I am very, very happy that there will be a full trial in which it's going to be, well, truth or facts are going to be established.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FEYERICK: So the plea now is not guilty. And prosecutors will not be able to tell a jury that Moussaoui ever intended pleading guilty. What they will be able to use, however, is information he gave to them during the hearings: admitting he was part of al Qaeda, admitting he swore a loyalty oath to Osama bin Laden, even admitting he was part of a conspiracy since 1995 - Connie.
CHUNG: Deborah, you've been in the courtroom all day, and I would imagine that he has been making a spectacle of himself. How is he behaving today?
FEYERICK: Well, today, he seemed a lot more subdued than in the has in the past. When he entered the courtroom, the judge told him to immediately go to the lectern. And interestingly, he sort of sat down at his table, he rifled through a folder, going through some papers. He didn't immediately jump when the judge told him to jump. He did finally go to the microphone. And when he had to reverse his guilty plea, he seemed almost withdrawn in a way. He said that prayer to God, and then he said that he had no choice but to withdraw the plea.
CHUNG: All right. There's one thing that I didn't understand from the beginning of the day. When he had pleaded guilty to four counts, each of those carried the death penalty, yet I had the impression that he did not want to go to the electric chair. That he did not want to die.
FEYERICK: It was kind of a twisted thinking. On one hand he said that by pleading guilty to the most serious counts, that in fact, he would be able to then go on and convince a jury that he wasn't guilty to the extent the government says he's guilty of. But then the judge said, I'm sorry, that's not a choice. If you're going to plead guilty, you have to plead guilty to everything in the indictment. And yet Moussaoui couldn't get to the fact that he had to say that, yes, I was involved in 9/11. Because in his own words, he said, you know, that would guarantee my death, so I'm not willing to do that. At that point, he realized that he was stuck and that's when he withdrew his plea.
CHUNG: I see. Well, he does have what they're calling stand-by attorneys, but he's been ignoring them. Is he still ignoring them?
FEYERICK: Well, Connie, he seemed to extend what's a very little olive branch to them today. He's not spoken to them since April. He's ignored them. He's insulted them. He has accused them of trying to kill him. But today, after he withdrew his plea, he asked them to basically try to track down a witness for him. And his stand-by counsel thinks that maybe that's a way of him realizing that he's got no choice now., that the only way he can mount any sort of a real defense is by having lawyers who know exactly what the law is.
CHUNG: All right. Deborah, great job. Thank you so much for being with us.
When we come back, how to prevent future September 11s. We'll talk to one of the pilot's widows about what she wants Congress to do.
ANNOUNCER: Still to come, a family dynasty of greed and corruption? A look into the life styles of the rich and infamous. CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT returns in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: One of those who lost a loved one on September 11 is fighting a legal battle of her own today. Ellen Sarah Cheney's (ph) -- excuse me -- Ellen Saracini's husband Victor was the pilot of United Airlines Flight 175, the second plane to crash into the World Trade Center. Now she's pushing for legislation to let pilots carry sidearms.
Now in the Senate, a committee chairman, Ernest Hollings, opposes armed pilots.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ERNEST HOLLINGS (D), SOUTH DAKOTA: If I was a pilot, rather than guns and all this other kind of argument and everything else like that, I would want a proof-positive, tried and tested system of keeping that door absolutely secure in flight going right straight down to the ground.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Saracini's request to testify before Hollings' committee today was denied.
She joins us tonight from Washington.
Ellen, thank you for joining us, we appreciate it.
ELLEN SARACINI, WIFE OF PILOT KILLED IN SEPT. 11 ATTACKS: Thank you.
CHUNG: Tell me, your husband and you had discussed the entire idea of having a gun in the cockpit a long time ago, even before 9/11, right?
SARACINI: Yes, it was before September 11.
CHUNG: And can you describe what his position was?
SARACINI: Well, my husband always thought ahead. He was always safety-minded, and he always prepared for anything that was happening.
So I know that when he went to work, he always thought of himself and his crew and the passengers and their safety.
CHUNG: Had he always felt that way, or was there some turning point in the beginning of his career?
SARACINI: No, he always felt that way. He always made sure that everything was in control.
CHUNG: And you supported him in this idea of having a gun?
SARACINI: Sure. I think it's a good idea. CHUNG: All right, Ellen, what about those who say that a potential hijacker can't bring a gun onboard -- would be detected -- but the hijacker could wrestle it away from the pilot?
SARACINI: Well I think, first of all, that we have to think of, if the pilots are armed, it's a deterrent. There are going to be many terrorists that don't even go on the airplanes because they know that they're up against pilots with arms.
And as far as them wrestling the gun, they're not just handing the pilots a gun. They're going to go through training. And they're not going to want them entering the cockpit.
I believe that we can trust them. We entrust them with multimillion-dollar airplanes, we entrust them with the lives of many people. There's no reason why trained pilots can't be trained with arms and protect everyone.
CHUNG: All right, let's go on to today's controversy. You wanted to testify before Senator Hollings' committee and you were denied. Why?
SARACINI: Well, Senator Hollings is definitely against arming pilots, and I think that was the biggest reason. Another reason is that I think I have a compelling voice, and he doesn't want to hear it.
CHUNG: Well, but he did have four pilots testify, just the same you would if they -- excuse me, they were testifying positively for guns in the cockpit, and just one against.
He says, you know, that he was able to cover the ground without you.
SARACINI: Well, that's what he feels. But I think a lot of the other people would like to hear from some of the victims on it, too.
CHUNG: All right, let me just read you -- a spokesperson put this out from Hollings' office: "Senator Hollings received a request from Senator Smith to add four additional witnesses two days before the hearings. With respect to this request, Senator Hollings believed that Senator Smith's testimony would well-represent the four additional witnesses, all of whom were encouraged to submit written testimony."
SARACINI: One of those four, obviously, was you. And you were able to submit the written testimony.
But I know what you mean; it's just not the same. I mean, you were going to give a passionate plea, weren't you?
SARACINI: Well, sure. And I think any plea coming from any of the victims' families is a passionate plea.
But it also has a lot of issues. I can talk about things that Senator Hollings does really not want to deal with. He has some issues that I'm not sure about, that -- he's not looking into finding about all the facts. And he needs to be told about them. And I would like to tell him, and so would a lot of other people.
CHUNG: You now, right now you have an opportunity to do so, so go ahead.
SARACINI: Well, today he talked about impenetrable doors, that that was the answer; that they did not need to be armed.
The problem is that they do not exist. When you're talking about an airplane, you talk about the CG of an airplane. If you try to reinforce the doors, you'd be putting a lot of weight on the front of the airplane.
The airplane cannot fly. The airplanes that we have today can't handle the weight on the nose.
So we would be talking about having Boeing come up with a new design and then trying to talk the airlines into coming up with a whole new fleet of aircraft.
And we don't have the time to wait. That would take years and years, and we just -- we can't wait. We need them to act very swiftly. We need Senator Daschle and Senator Hollings, right now, to pass one of the two bills through the floor. They can do that. Tomorrow they could go in and they could pass it through, and they just need to do that.
CHUNG: You know, you do have a lot of support. According to a survey conducted by pilots' unions, pilots, flight attendants, many in the House of Representatives, certainly, and as many as 70 percent of Americans support the idea. You're not alone.
SARACINI: Oh, no. There's a majority. It is very high. And everyone wants this.
It's amazing that so few can make this stop.
CHUNG: The only thing, I think, that concerns some people is that if a given pilot is not trained enough, you know, to handle a situation, it's very difficult.
Might the pilot and the passengers simply get hurt?
SARACINI: Do you ever feel that when you get on an airplane that you feel that that pilot is not trained enough?
CHUNG: No, not to fly. We're talking about to handle a gun and to handle a security situation.
SARACINI: I understand that. But my point is that any of these guys that are getting on the airplane and flying the airplane don't just get on and say, oh, I can wing it today. And they would not be taking firearms carelessly.
CHUNG: What if, as Senator Hollings has suggested, there are a few pilots who will do so, but others -- not the entire fleet.
SARACINI: Well, that's still a deterrent. If you do not know which pilots do not have the firearms, then you're not going to risk going onto that airplane hoping that they don't.
CHUNG: All right. Ellen Saracini, thank you so much for joining us. We appreciate it.
SARACINI: Thank you.
CHUNG: And good luck to you in your efforts.
SARACINI: Thank you very much.
CHUNG: OK.
Now let's go to Aaron Brown in New York for a look at tonight's developing stories to the minute.
(NEWSBREAK)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: When you look at the Adelphia case, the most recent instance of the government's drive to crack down on corporate wrongdoing, here's something to put it in perspective. Three members of Adelphia's founding family, the Rigas family, were arrested yesterday. Bail was set at $10 million each. That's $10 million each. And here's the kicker: They all made bail. That's kind of money we're talking about in the family that started the nation's sixth biggest cable company.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): In tiny Coudersport, Pennsylvania, John Rigas was the richest man in town. He was the regular guy billionaire who, 50 years ago, started what became Adelphia Communications, the country's sixth largest cable company, while keeping the headquarters in the same town of 2,600.
It may have all ended yesterday when 78-year-old Rigas an his two sons, both former Adelphia executives, Michael and Timothy, were arrested, handcuffed and charged with nine felony counts.
LARRY THOMPSON, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: In less than four years, the complaint alleges, they stole hundreds of millions of dollars, and through their fraud, causes losses to investors of more than $60 billion.
CHUNG: But what was the money used for? The feds allege $150 million went into purchasing the Buffalo Sabres NHL hockey team; $13 million allegedly went towards building a private golf course on their land. It's still not finished. The government alleges a private jet was used for an African safari, and another $12 million allegedly went into Eleni Interiors, a furniture store owned by John Rigas and run by his wife. The three Rigases were also charged with using more than a quarter billion dollars in company money to pay margin calls against its loans, and there may be more to come.
THOMPSON: The full scope of the fraud that was under way in that company is still under investigation. And all of the bad actors are going to have to face the force of the law.
CHUNG: While the investigation continues, John Rigas and his sons are free after posting bail, $10 million each.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(on camera): John Rigas' attorney did not comment on the charges, but called his client an extremely decent man, and said that Rigas, quote, "never sold a share of Adelphia stock." There were no comments from any of the other Rigas attorneys.
So, where does all this leave him, not to mention Adelphia Communications? Well, their lawyers say prosecutors are being overzealous. "Fortune" magazine's senior writer Devin Leonard knows the company inside and out, and he joins us now. Welcome. Thank you for being with us.
DEVIN LEONARD, SENIOR WRITER, "FORTUNE": Thanks for having me, Connie.
CHUNG: All right. I think to understand the Rigas family, we have to go back. Was John Rigas a self-made man?
LEONARD: Absolutely. No. He's the son of a Greek immigrant who ran a hot dog restaurant in Wellsville, New York not too far from Coudersport, where Adelphia's headquartered. And John got an engineering degree, came back home and decided he didn't like cooking fast food and bought a movie theater in Coudersport, Pennsylvania, which was -- ticket sales were declining and I think a lot people thought he had lost his mind or -- and then he bought the local cable franchise for $300. He wrote a check.
CHUNG: Only $300?
LEONARD: He's just buying a license to have a cable -- there's no -- nobody even knew about cable back. This was 1952.
CHUNG: Oh my gosh, yes.
LEONARD: So, but he wrote it characteristically. He wrote a check with money that he didn't have in his bank account. And from there, he went on to build a company with $3.6 billion in annual revenues. It's the sixth largest cable company.
CHUNG: Billions.
LEONARD: Billions. Excuse me. I'm sorry.
CHUNG: No, you said -- I just was emphasizing. You meant billion and you said billion.
LEONARD: Absolutely. Absolutely.
CHUNG: All right. So, he was clearly ambitious. Was he a nice guy?
LEONARD: He was a guy who really wanted to be liked. He wanted everyone to like him. And when he first came to Coudersport, which is a sleepy little town, he was ambitious. He wore his ambition on his sleeve. People didn't know quite what to make of him. He was rejected. People who knew him as friends say that that stung him, but it also pushed him to be more -- to try to get people to accept him. And that also meant becoming a prominent person in this little town of 2,600 people.
CHUNG: So was he benevolent then? Did he become sort of revered?
LEONARD: Well, I think he really became benevolent when the company grew and grew and grew and he had a lot of shareholders' money to start throwing around. And that was really in the '90s. But he hired tons and tons of local people. There were 2,000 people coming in and out of that town every day working for Adelphia. And remember, that's almost as much as the population of the town itself.
He would read the newspaper, and when he read stories about people who were down on their luck, he'd send them checks. People would camp out in the local restaurants waiting for him to come in to lunch so they could tap him for a favor. And John loved that. He loved all the attention.
CHUNG: And like a king, he would grant them the favor?
LEONARD: Yes. But the thing is is that he was kind of a control freak. He controlled his family, his sons. His three sons went to grade schools, but they came back to Coudersport. Two of them came back to live at home. They never got married. They all went to work for the company. The nine-member board, five of the members, five of the board members are Rigas family members. I guess a son-in-law was also on the board. The rest...
CHUNG: Sorry. I just wanted to stop you for a minute because fast forward to the trouble. There was a turning point. And now, the government is accusing the family of just -- I mean, well, why don't you explain it?
LEONARD: Well basically, one of the things that the Rigases did was they borrowed and borrowed and borrowed and borrowed billions and billions of dollars, and far more than the other cable companies because they kept buying and kept growing and growing and growing.
So Wall Street didn't like all that debt. So what the Rigases did is they began issuing stock instead of borrowing money. Well, the problem was that the more stock they issued, the more -- and if other people started buying the stock, the Rigases wouldn't control the company anymore. So what do they do? They began buying the stock. But they didn't have any money to buy the stock because that company has never made money. Most cable companies don't make money. So they had pretty small salaries.
So anyway, so they borrowed more money to buy the stock, and they kept those borrowed monies off the books. And it wasn't until Enron blew up last year and the SEC sort of brought in companies to disclose more about their off-the-books debt that the Rigases put a little, tiny footnote in the end of a press release on their quarterly earnings on March 27, and a guy at Merrill Lynch, a guy named Oren Cohen, noticed that, started asking questions in the conference call.
The Rigases really couldn't answer the question, and the stock just started -- tanked. And basically, the company had to sort of disclose what they were doing. But when they disclosed what they were doing, I guess with the borrowing, they also had to disclose a whole bunch of other stuff because there was a fallout between the Rigases and their old buddies on the board.
Their old buddies hired David Boies, who brought in some forensic accountants, and they found all sorts of stuff. Not just the debt, but just the Rigases were helping themselves to shareholder money, just looting the place.
CHUNG: And spending it on themselves?
LEONARD: Yes.
CHUNG: Essentially?
LEONARD: Well, certainly John funded his daughter's...
CHUNG: Well, that's what the government accuses -- yes.
LEONARD: I mean, they -- basically, John wanted everybody to sort of live out their fantasies. He wanted his daughter to live out her fantasy as a filmmaker. His wife Doris fancied herself an interior designer; she started a store up in -- nearby Oleon (ph). And who was their biggest customer? Adelphia. In the last year, $12 million in furniture that, I guess, they bought from John's wife Doris. And it goes on and on and on.
CHUNG: Well thank you so much Devin.
LEONARD: Sure. My pleasure.
CHUNG: I enjoyed, actually, reading your article in "Fortune." It was fascinating.
Thank you for being with us.
When we come back: He ate a lot of fast food. Why? Because he liked it. Liked it so much that he's suing.
ANNOUNCER: Next: Does fast food put you on the way to fast health problems? One man says so, and he's taking these restaurants to task.
His story when CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT returns.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: It was many years ago that McDonald's stopping keeping count of just what they said "billions and billions served." But now a small but growing -- and I do mean growing -- fraction of those billions served have decided to serve back.
Namely, they've served papers on McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's and KFC. They allegation: fast food is quickly eating away at their health. What's more, they charge, the restaurants have, in essence, created and marketed an addictive substance with a side of fries.
And that's part of the claim of a lawsuit filed by lawyer Samuel Hirsch and his client Caesar Barber.
And joining us from Washington, we have Victor Schwartz, general counsel of the American Tort Reform Association.
All right. First, let's start with you. What kind of food were you eating?
CAESAR BARBER, SAYS FAST FOOD WAS KILLING HIM: McDonald's Big Macs, value meals. Breakfasts; breakfast meals. Fried chicken. French fries.
CHUNG: It sounds great! Wasn't it?
BARBER: It did when I was eating it, yes, it sounded great.
CHUNG: And were you eating this every day?
BARBER: Yes I was. About five times a week.
CHUNG: Did you know that it wasn't good for you to eat fast food five times a week?
BARBER: No, I didn't know that until I had a heart attack.
CHUNG: You did?
BARBER: Yes.
CHUNG: And you also had diabetes, didn't you?
BARBER: Yes.
CHUNG: So you had one heart attack, and then you continued eating this food?
BARBER: After the first heart attack because it was -- the advertisement that got me, it was 100 percent beef, which I associated with being good; healthy for you.
CHUNG: Really? Just the ad in and of itself?
BARBER: Right.
CHUNG: All right. Then you had another heart attack?
BARBER: Yes, 1999.
CHUNG: And did you continue eating fast food after that?
BARBER: No I didn't. After that one of my vessels collapsed and they had to put a stent in my heart. And I thought I was going to die.
So I decided that the doctor was right in '96, but it was too late then, but it wasn't too late in '99.
CHUNG: All right. Mr. Barber, nobody was holding a gun to your head and saying you've got to eat this fast food, right?
BARBER: Right. But what gets me is when I was eating this fast food, I never seen signs that tell you that this food had this kind of fat content, that it had sodium, that it had sugar -- that it would give me sugar, that it would give me high cholesterol, that I would get diabetes. I'm obese.
CHUNG: But Mr. Barber -- yes. But you know -- you knew that this stuff was not really good for you, didn't you?
BARBER: No, I didn't.
CHUNG: All right, Mr. Hirsch, what's the purpose of this lawsuit?
SAMUEL HIRSCH, ATTORNEY SUING FAST-FOOD RESTAURANTS: I think the purpose, it has a many-fold objective. I think one of the main objectives, and Mr. Barber and I agree completely on this, is whether or not there's any moneys recovered, that there's a change brought about with regard to the way the fast food industry markets and sells their products without properly informing the public, particularly...
(CROSSTALK)
CHUNG: Let's get real here, you know?
HIRSCH: Let's get real, fine.
CHUNG: I mean, they offer -- these fast food restaurants offer other things, you know?
HIRSCH: Not a problem. Not a problem.
CHUNG: And if you get a Big Mac attack, you're the one who goes out and gets it and eats it.
HIRSCH: Well, I think there are numerous responses to that argument. And it's a valid argument, and I understand and I appreciate it.
And I think that there is some responsibility, and some consumers who may have an idea that some of the stuff is not healthy for you, and they share some of that responsibility.
I think more importantly, I think it's the fast food industry that are constantly maneuvering and manipulating the market. And by constantly barraging, even young kids, youngsters, with these promotions and value meals and combo meals and Happy Meals.
CHUNG: The parents are buying it for their kids and...
HIRSCH: You know, there was a time...
CHUNG: People know.
HIRSCH: There was a long time ago when we used to send children down in coal mining shafts.
I think that the country -- I think we have to behave responsibly. And I think the fast food industry has not been behaving responsibly.
(CROSSTALK)
CHUNG: But don't we have a responsibilities for our own behavior?
HIRSCH: Yes, we do. But part of it is the informed consent type of argument. In other words, inform the public that some of the stuff is really hazardous and dangerous to yourself. It's loaded with the calorie content in excess, some of them, with more than 1500 calories, over 60 grams of fat. Loaded with sodium and so forth.
I am convinced that the majority of consumers and buyers and customers at these super fast food chains have no idea or clue as to the extent of the calories and the grams of fats and the fries and how unhealthy it is to them.
CHUNG: Probably not. They don't have figures, but they know it's not good for them. Why didn't Mr. Barber get a lunchbox and pack a tuna fish sandwich or a PB&J?
HIRSCH: Very simple. You know, I eat tuna until it's coming out of my whatever...
CHUNG: Well, how about a good old PB&J?
HIRSCH: Well, he is a single fellow. Not unlike of, many of the working people in the United States, you want something close by, very quick, very efficient. Something that smells good, tastes good, and it's got all the ingredients of giving you that satisfaction after having digesting good, heavy meal.
But when you think about it, they don't have much of an opportunity to go out, sit down like a restaurant like some of us and get a good healthy...
CHUNG: I bring my lunch from home.
HIRSCH: Well, maybe you do, because you're working, and I see you're very dedicated and you're going over your papers all the time. But there are many -- there are many who just don't have the abilities to make that to make that, and to going shopping and all the preparations that go with that, but...
CHUNG: I want to read -- the National Restaurant Association gave us a statement saying, "This sort of action gives frivolous a bad name. It's senseless, baseless, and ridiculous to compare food to anything addictive." Which of course you do.
Let us go to Mr. Schwartz down in Washington. Do you think this is a legitimate lawsuit?
VICTOR SCHWARTZ, GEN. COUNSEL, AMER. TORT REFORM ASSN.: Well, 10 years ago I said it would occur, and Mr. Hirsch has some very interesting points. Cases that were established against tobacco really provide a path for these suits. That tobacco is addictive, that people don't know.
Everybody knows cigarettes are dangerous to your health. Nevertheless, cases were allowed to proceed. These precedents allowed these cases to open up a door, and the question is, choice.
Is the law going to say that we really have a right to choose, or is the law going to say, hey, I'm not responsible for my conduct? And I can see why Mr. Hirsch filed this lawsuit. It doesn't surprise me. The precedents were there, and we'll see how he does.
CHUNG: Well, but I mean, is it legitimate?
SCHWARTZ: Well, legitimacy in this area of law, Connie, is left up to judges who can decide what to do. My view is that it's unlikely the cases will be successful. Right now, fast food is popular with the American people.
If it becomes unpopular, judges will change the law in some areas of the country, not everywhere, and might provide a path to him. After all, his client didn't fully know. He wasn't fully informed. He was induced to do this. Children begin eating fat. Fat is addictive.
I mentioned this 10 years ago. It doesn't surprise me. It's up to the judges of America to decide whether people can make a choice or not. And whether the defendant is popular or unpopular, they make a choice. I mean, liquor...
CHUNG: But Mr. Schwartz, what about people taking responsibility for themselves?
SCHWARTZ: Well, I believe that. When I -- I know enough, because I've had health things, that I'm not supposed to eat that stuff, and I think people should take responsibility for themselves. If they don't, the liquor industry, the fast food industry, anything that's an indulgence, is going to be subject to liability in this country.
And we're going to see in the next few years some very important decisions. You've put your finger on the exact issue. Are we responsible for our own behavior or is it the responsibility of somebody who gives us something that's tempting? I mean, there's a lot of things that are tempting.
CHUNG: Well, I think, Mr. Hirsch, you have an ally, don't you?
HIRSCH: I think that Mr. Schwartz made some very valid arguments. I think here we're not trying to legislate good diet or good eating habits. We're trying to make sure that the fast food industry gives you options, gives you alternatives, and informs the public and educates young children and others and not make it so enticing and induce young kids with promotions, getting a superhero...
CHUNG: OK, let me ask Mr. Barber one last question. What do you eat now?
BARBER: I eat salad. I eat baked, broiled and balled. The three B's.
CHUNG: Baked, broiled and...
BARBER: Balled.
CHUNG: Balled?
BARBER: Yes, the four -- the three big B's.
CHUNG: I see. And how's your health?
BARBER: My health -- it's getting a little bit better, but I'm still taking medicine for obesity, for diabetic, for heart condition, and for high blood pressure. All right? All these things.
CHUNG: All right. Thank you so much, gentlemen, for being with us. We appreciate it.
HIRSCH: Thank you very much for having us. Thank you.
CHUNG: Ben Hirsch and Caesar Barber and Victor Schwartz. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: Wasn't that a ridiculous lawsuit? I mean, give me a break! We all agree, right, here?
Yes. Yes! All right. Settled that. To get a preview of our program every day, sign up for our daily e-mail by logging on to CNN.com/connie. Coming up next on "LARRY KING LIVE" -- you must see this -- Erin Runnion, the mother of murdered 5-year-old Samantha Runnion, is going to be on. Thank you for joining us, and for all of us at CNN, good night and see you tomorrow.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
by Adelphia Arrests; Man Sues Fast Food Restaurants for Making Him Fat>
|
|
|
|
|
